Maybe that the earth and moon aren't the same size. Maybe that an "earth eclipse" would look nothing like that. Maybe that that specific portion of sky would ONLY be visible during an earth eclipse at one tiny period of time each year with all other dates and times showing something very different. Maybe that the constellations designed and named by man, with great imagination, does not say anything about God.

This is what happens when theologists try to use science they don't understand to "prove" their theology.

What happened? It was shown in the video clip. At the same time that history says that the man Jesus was hung on the cross, at the moment the bible records that he died, an eclipse occurred that "blacked out" the heart of Aries, the ram.

Kepler's math, was able to calculate the map of the sky in the 1600s, but he made a mistake (based on the work of Josephus' writing) about the day Herod died. When they figure out the mistake and make the correction about the star of Bethlehem... everything falls into place. You should watch the movie, it's awesome if you like astronomy.

That no historians agree. That messiah is a made up story from OT( Elijah to Zecharia to Daniel) mixed with Homer, Innana and Romulus. So a messiah who is sent to save from sin is not historical but mythical.

Not a threat at all. It's a belief that we will all meet Jesus. A full belief that this verse is fact: "It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.'"Rm 14:11

You tell me. Throwing out a statement like that is meaningless. You want me to prove God's existence, but you think you can just say, "How many times was this debunked?" and have it stick?No, YOU tell ME. How many times was it debunked?

Too many times, I lost count.Both are 4th century christian forgeries, passage inserted to make up for the absence of evidence. Neither of them are contemporary. There was no christians in Rome at the time of Nero(one among many sects of jews), for Romans to differentiate. Regarding belief, you don't "believe" the sun exists, do you? It exists regardless of what you believe. I don't want you to prove but explain that claim rationally, CAN you?

There certainly are historians who agree. If you're saying that no historians agree that He is the Messiah, then you are incorrect. And if you're trying to say that no historians agree with each other, that is also incorrect.

In history there is no god nor messiah but only people who act as if/in the belief. Historians agree, christians don't. There are some christians who pose as historians, but dishonesty is part of Christianity, isn't it?

Herodotus though considered the first historian he was not considered a scientific one while Thucididies is. Herodotus considered gods interfering and Thucididies wrote people actions in that belief is one reason why. There are no gods in history only in myths. And all standard historians agree because it is them who classified Thucididies as a scientific historian amd Herodotus as a garrulous story teller.

Not only there is no god, but also no gods are seen at present. Hence gods were not involved with humans in the past as it is in the present. But all cultures claim about god's involvement in their history but the only demonstrable one is people acting in that belief just like you are doing now. Just like in the present the physical laws are immutable. So all historians avoid god but christians are usually not unbiased when it comes to Christianity, just like you now, but I guess you won't agree that god talked to muhammad or incarnated as Rama.

I once more tell you, I am open to the possibility of god provided you can rationally explain after defining all your crucial terms. I won't simply take your or anybody's word for it. The only fact is we exist, anything beyond is a claim that need explanation. After trying for more than 2000years still none is able to explain means it's irrational. It might be good to remember that you still haven't provided the definition of 'object' and ''physical" after making the statement non - physical object. You should explain as 'physical' and 'object' are synonyms and so it is similar to saying noncircular circle.

It might be good to remember that I did indeed present definition to you, you simply rejected them because they didn't fit into your paradigm. Saying that you are open-minded only works so long as you're even a little bit willing to back it up. If, on the other hand, you immediately start long-winded attacks on the other person, accusing them of failing to do something that they have, indeed, done (but that you don't agree with) is NOT open-minded.

I do have a bias, and sometimes I have to work against my bias. And when I'm wrong, I apologize. You go on the attack. You can say from now until Jesus comes again that I didn't do what you asked, and it only proves that you define reality according to your likes and dislikes, not what is and isn't.

History shows that you will respond with another long-winded attack restating your position. Since I've said that, you might not, but I wouldn't bet against it. I on the hand am done. When you are willing to back up your words with action, I'm here.

You said "god is a non physical object".Me : physical and object are synonyms so contradiction or give your definition of physical and object. You: " you are biased. ....." two or three condensed paragraph why I am.Who is biased?By not providing an OBJECTIVE definition your all arguments are mute.

As long you don't provide an objective definition all your arguments are worthless. Only a post above you were complaining that I was "long winded". When I condensed it you didn't like. You see unable to understand when I condense so I explain.

And this is Red herring nothing to do with your inability to provide an objective definition. God is a non physical physical(object) won't do. I don't know what sense you make out of such a contradictory statement but I understand it as nonsense.Object and physical are synonyms and objects exist, have a shape. So we can say what exists is an object/physical. What is not physical/object/shapeless is a concept conceived by beings.your definition sounds like 'that figure is a non round circle' or 'he is a married bachelor'. May be you can make sense out of this, I can't.

The red herring is yours, not mine. Let me say again, and for the last time, that I have provided a definition. If you don't like it, you can say so. If you disagree with it, you can say so. But to keep saying that I have refused to provide one is dishonest. Whether you mean it as intentional deception (which I am not accusing you of) or you really believe that I have not done as you asked, it is still a misrepresentation of what I've done. I don't agree with many of the things you say but I don't go on to say that you never answered my questions because I don't agree with the answer. Even a closed-minded person needs to be honest.

I asked you to provide a valid definition not a contradictory meaningless one (a definition that contain a contradiction is NOT a DEFINITION. A definition by the very definition should make the meaning clear and objective.).What I said is the definition you provided is not valid as it contain an inherent contradiction.You can continue to pretend it is valid even after all these explanations and examples and accuse me of being long winded but still won't change the fact that your definition is not objective and only you can understand it. But I don't insist you to provide an objective definition for an objective definition will not only force you to retract your arguments but also change all your COMFORTABLE life so is against your self interest. So the last time, either provide a definition (that is a statement that clarify the meaning of the term precisely) or stop the discussion.

As was proven at the time, I am NOT the only one who can understand it. But perhaps that is the key here. You can't understand it, therefor you find it easier to simply slag it off and act like I didn't do something than to admit that it might be outside of experience (not beyond your ability, just outside of your experience.) That would make a lot more sense, or at least paint you as nicer, than thinking you do understand what I'm saying but instead of being honest and just saying you don't agree with me, go though all these contortions to try to claim that I failed you.

You reject the dictionary, stillphysical - having material existence. Object - something material. So it is not only me but those who write dictionary also don't understand what you says. It is imperative that you tell me what you mean by those terms as it seems that you are not using it as english words. If you can understand you should be able to explain it, then why don't you do it instead of hurling insults? Why I have not seen you defining these crucial terms of your definition?

Hang that one up. Not only did I demonstrate that I do understand the dictionary (and I would wager that I understand a dictionary, as well as the English language, better than you or RA,) but there were other people who proved that they understand the concept that God can exist and not be a material being. I'll admit that it's somewhat amusing to keep doing this, which is why I keep on after I said I was going to stop, but it's apparent that you can't grasp the concepts. I'm not saying you're stupid, I don't think you are. I think you are very intelligent. But you just can't seem to wrap your mind around a being who can exist without a material body.

Desist attempting to demonstrate the intellectual deficiencies of my methodologies. My masteries of the linguistic and philosophical foundations defy such attempts.

And by the way, your baseline assumption is that God must be removed. I disagree. He must not. So that one is not going to fly either.

You once, when I quoted the dictionary, said you don't need the dictionary as it is not correct. Now if you understand the dictionary, I quoted the meanings from dictionary to show that both those words are synonyms, so explain.

By using fallacy of equivocation. Exist has two meanings in common usage (one denote concept and another object) [love exists and is non material - here it is used to denote a concept, conceived by humans. But when we say chair exists we use it to denote object. So is your god like love or chair?]. People subtly change the meaning from one to the other while discussing. You ask them to specify which meaning they use beforehand (that is define exist), all these understanding will stop.We were discussing about "physical" and "object" not "exist". You didn't gave the definition of 'exist' but only god.

If that was the case you would've been better in defining words (wouldn't have run away from definitions) and conveying what you mean. You would have been more rigorous in the use of words than I.But I will state this as an example were even teachers of logic and linguistics forget all about that when it comes to their cherished beliefs.

"God is a non physical object". I mean take god from that sentence and concentrate only on the rest.

Okay, I have a question. I've read this and Jomine's response to this post and both have left me with a question for you or anyone who will answer.

I understand Paul went on about a physical and a spiritual body, but do any of you feel that God or yourselves after you die will have a physical presence? Will you guys or God be made up of something material? Mater has to exist somewhere, where would that somewhere be?

After we die, we don't have physical presence rather any presence that is why it is called death. "We" are similar to a computer, an illusion created by a circuit (neurons in our case, wires and chips in a computer). The matter that make up the circuit exists. Even if we break up a computer into dust, it still weigh the same though it will not be a computer any longer. Matter has location and location is denoted by coordinates, location is a relation to another object.

Well, to have a physical body is to take up space, so yes. Revelation says that this earth will be destroyed and a new earth, with a new Jerusalem, will take its place.

I've said before that there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that doesn't 'make sense' to me in that it can't be scientifically explained or replicated. I have freely admitted that if I hadn't had the (numerous) experiences that I've had, I wouldn't believe in God either, let alone the Bible. Nevertheless, I have had those experiences and I do believe in the God and the Bible. So even though there are parts that don't "make sense" to me, I still believe them.

Okay, well I think that's a fair explanation, but I have to ask. How do you know that your god is the God of the bible and how do you know that Paul wasn't just making stuff up. It's my understanding that at least one of the apostles disagreed with him. It's it possible that your God is real and Jesus was really him, but Paul was just making stuff up?

Fair questions. To answer your first one, it is the sheer number of times that they experiences centered around Christianity. If they had been spread over different 'spiritualities' or if I'd had just one or two, I probably wouldn't believe it at all. My brother actually "walked the aisle" (went down to the front of the church to accept Jesus) when he was 12, and today he's not a Christian. So go figure.

I've read the Bible, and thought about the Bible, for 26 years now and I'm convinced that the Bible holds together a lot better than even a lot of Christians say it does. I don't think that Paul was making stuff up. If you're fairly familiar with the deeper theology of the OT, you'll see that a lot of what he wrote can be traced back to that. Yes, he got into it with Peter, but Peter did come around to Paul's way of thinking. Paul's mind just worked on a different level than most people's and he connected dots that most people would not have. But to be super direct, no, I don't think he made stuff up.

So you don't understand it either, do you? Providing a definition doesn't need experience but only the willingness to be understood and the wish to be clear and precise in ones statements. A definition is a statement that express the meaning of a word(there is no experience in that). I never asked about any experience or crap. What I asked you is to provide the definition so that I can understand what you state. By using the dictionary I can't make out what you say as you use contradictory words. And it is by using a dictionary people find the actual meaning of words, especially such concepts, not from eexperience. People may experience love but to know the meaning of the term, only dictionary helps.

If you want to be understood use English words in a meaningful way.Shall I say about you all these if you failed to understand "married bachelor" or "non round circle"? Is it because it is outside your experience that you don't understand these terms. Take god out of it, still physical and object are synonyms. Now who can blame me if I conclude christians are dishonest after this conversation?

You said you were not trying to deceive so I can't find any other reason for your obvious attempts to shy away from giving the meaning of what you state. You instead simply accuse me of being long winded and say you gave a definition while you actually didn't and imply that I am trying deception as I don't understand the obvious contradiction you stated(which you failed to back up).

That's rather selective. It's not like all Christian historians ignore the parts of history they don't like, just as it's true that not all atheist historians, even ones with a stated aversion to Christianity, are quick to conclude that religion in general and Christianity in particular are responsible for all the evils of history.

Isn't that "all" your contribution? All monotheisms (not religion) from Atenism to islam are responsible for major evils (just as responsible as an AK 47, if you ask me).We were not discussing christian involvement in history that may or may not be biased but "god's" involvement in history. No scientific historian agree to god's involvement. Just as you demonstrated (solar eclipse for darkness) they are trying to prove bible, trying to give a "natural" explanation. If they were not, they could simply say god did it. But history got to be natural not supernatural and if you call that bias then all historians are biased but then such a claim is based on your imperative to prove your irrational beliefs.

We have so many authors from the past writing stories as from the past. Some are fully true, some partly and some none at all. Some do euhemerisation some write myths as history. But only a few write it as stories (events in the past). Greeks thought that Homer is true history. Plutarch has written thinking that some of the myths are true histories (thesus). A scientific historian is the one who write history from a natural vantage point, there are elements like the source or material from where the story is included, different sources for the same event.... But the more important one is, it should be natural, supernatural events are either myths or the inability of the historian to look into the matter. The most important one is the historian should be unbiased, he should not be writing it for propaganda. Of course one can't always look into the past, even then the explanation if given should be natural. And only events with sources should be there. Private conversations are good in a novel, not history. A historian will never write a god walked through earth but only a man who claimed himself as god was there (which actually is the truth).In case of jesus the basic element of the story is taken from previous stories. The first known writer paul is talking only about a heavenly jesus. Mark is a clear copy of homer. None of the authors wrote as they were writing history and only Luke claims to write one. If any historian wrote about jesus why should they rely on jewish greek and roman stories to write one? If the gospel is changed into a natural one there is not much left. Compare him to muhammad, even if we made it into a natural one the story can stand, jesus's can't. Even then, story of muhammad also have less historical veracity as unbiased corroboration is not available, there are alternate explanations for the events, there are clear mythical events like a Christian saint identifying him (like david is identified by Samuel) and so on. ..and as I already said, that is why christian "historians" go to great length to explain the darkness (which is not corroborated in any other source, even two gospels) as natural event. Dead persons will never walk in town in history. There should be plausibility.

You forgot the natural part?Multiple source and corroborative evidence will help you too.eg: say Assyrian king wrote he destroyed egypt, that is propaganda but if we have corroborative evidence from Egypt or a Hittitie king confirming it we can also confirm at the least that there was a war and Egypt was routed.

While I agree historians are biased. If Hitler won the war we would have a different history of it. I'll give you that as a fact. No questions asked.

However this god creating nature thing is another matter altogether. Nature has defined laws that cannot be broken. I don't see God braking any of them nor do I see any evidence of natures laws broken.

As past is only an explanation, it has to be rational. Creation is a contradictory irrational meaningless term(in the context you use). God also is a meaningless term, a concept used to describe the irrational notion of "creation".

Really? Huh. Because the astronauts have talked about how small the Earth looks from the moon. I'm not sure whether to believe guys who have actually been to the moon and seen Earth from it or not now...

Compared to what it looks like when standing on the surface, I bet it does look small and insignificant. But what does that have to do with the relative sizes of each compared to sun and when standing on the surface of the moon/earth?

I understood just fine thanks. It was mostly drivel and - as has been explained to you - incorrect or outright lies. Still - must be helping you maintain your irrational belief so who am I to point out how ignorant that person actually is?

Want some specifics - check out what wilderness already explained to you.

What a shame this belief system always causes you to be so aggressive.

No, there wasn't anyone on the moon, but that does not mean that we can't get a pretty good idea of what it would have looked like. We do it all the time in other contexts. Even Star Trek has heard from scientists who looked at star patterns and worked back to whether those would have been accurate. I mean in the episodes that took place on Earth.

The Gospel of Mark states that Jesus died 'in the ninth hour.' That would have been 3 p.m.

Guys, I think we need to back up a bit. It is said that Jesus was crucified and died at passover, correct? When is passover celebrated? Passover is a spring festival, so the 15th day of Nisan begins on the night of a full moon after the northern vernal equinox. In other words it's impossible to have a solar eclipse during passover. Unless someone has information I'm not privy to.

The only aggressiveness I found in these threads, is when someone makes fun of another's beliefs. We all have a right to believe what we want to. I don't think it's good to make fun or bash someone for having a certain belief, or no belief. I am not a churchgoing person, but I have no problem with those who do. I can believe what I want to believe, even if I want to believe we came from star people. Nobody knows exactly how the heck we all got here. Yes there are theories, but that's all they are. Theory simply means "1. abstract thought, 2. the general principles of a subject or 3. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts." In other words a hypothesis about something. We have the right to have our own theories about religion. We have the right to NOT believe or TO believe, it's that simple.

I'm still not getting any of this. I just don't see the point. It's said he was crucified and died during passover and during the day. That would make a full moon visible on the night side of the earth, which means the moon could not have blocked out the sun and even if there was a lunar eclipse it's perspective from the moon is irrelevant as no one has seen it.

I think this is an example of a psychics technique of throwing out erroneous information in hops that something catches.

And only in gospel. No contemporary person ever so it. Why not mention the dead men walking around in town? Why none bothered to explain? In truth a described eclipse by Thallus was used by a later charlatan to say that a darkness occured.

lol... you completely revised that sentence so that it makes sense... then put a bunch of question marks like you didn't understand what I meant... then posted a link to the "dishonesty of Christians." If I am skilled at dishonesty, I bow to your greater skills. If you dont want to discuss the link in any depth, I will letcha go.

I wasn't actually looking for info on him so that didn't occur to me. I just wondered if his name was French or Hispanic and then that link popped up. It's funny to see pics of each other. We're REAL! lol

Im sorry. Im waiting for my husband to get home. He explained it to me, but he was working on the comp. while he was talking and there were like 2 min. breaks between each sentence. lol I really think if I try to explain it, it will not answer your precise questions.

We've had a super busy couple of days... we're watching that Tom Cruise movie where he dies over and over. I'll ask him to answer your questions then. He doesn't enjoy these kinds of things so he's just being kind to me. lol

The question I had asked was how could there have been a solar eclipse during passover (full moon) which would have been the explanation for the darkening of the sky? If the description of his death is correct he died during sunlight and the moon wouldn't have been insight. Thanks for the effort.

The moon, full or otherwise, is visible during daylight hours as often as it is visible to us during night hours; rising in the east & setting in the west. Look for it during the day if you haven't noticed it before. Another interesting fact is the moon and sun "look" the same size to us from earth because the Sun diameter is 400 times larger than the moon and the sun is 400 times farther away.

Anyway, my dialog is superfluous to the main info in the original video Beth posted. The presenter is a lawyer just showing what the view of the earth looked like if one were standing on the moon at the moment of the death of Jesus of Nazareth, using an accurate app called "Starry Night Pro". It was only an interesting observation, this lawyer didn't make up the information, he simply discovered it using this software. How dd he know the exact moment of his death? He reveals how he discovered it in the third section of his full length feature presentation: http://www.bethlehemstar.net/about/ He isn't dogmatic about his discoveries, but meticulous in his research. Also, the purpose of his research wasn't to prove the existence of God, but demonstrate biblical accuracies and finding other interesting observations besides the view from the moon,

It does perplex me however that the video shows that the moon was in back of the earth (relative to the sun) at the time of his death therefore it could not have been in front of the earth and caused a solar eclipse.

It appears we are confusing the full moon with the new moon. When we see the entire moon during the day it's called a new moon, when we see the entire moon during the night it's called a full moon.

If passover happens during a full moon and the death of Jesus accordingly then there is no chance of a solar eclipse being a possible explanation to the darkness described in the bible.

Sure Rad Man, with zero sarcasm you are 100% correct. The following simple 1 min explanation of the phases of the moon shows what you're saying: http://youtu.be/jgoIP90apEs This "Starry Night Pro" software backs up what you're saying too. It backtracks time in the sky based on Kepler's math (enhanced by Newton's math) and isn't demonstrating a solar eclipse at this moment in history. This app is showing what us humans call a "lunar eclipse". Which at night makes the moon appear reddish (if one is on that side of the earth) and lasts less than 2 hours as the moon passes through the earth's shadow. The moon would "see" a very bright sun "disappear" and then "see" only refracted sunlight which had passed through the earth's atmosphere (if anything at all). That same refracted light would of been reflected back towards the night side of the earth. Meaningless detail to the people who where observing in Jerusalem around noon their time that day. However, to a Christian it might be interesting the "ram" in our constellations happened to have a "dark heart" at that particular moment from the particular angle (standing on our moon).

Okay good. We have established that the moon could not have blocked out the sun on that day. Good, because many have been suggesting that.

Next you will have to find evidence that God named the constellations and their meanings and then you'll have to explain what that had to do with coming from the perspective of the moon. to this day no one has seen that perspective. You could look around for some more erroneous signs much like a psychic search and listing names until you notice and that you only remember that name. What you are saying is that on that day there may have been a lunar eclipse that line up with a constellation or group of stars? So what?